Yuri

I have to agree with Shadow Minister.

>>Speech is either free or it is not>>

So, yes, freedom of speech includes the right to deny the Holocaust.

Promoting the agenda of the Nazi party is more problematical because an actual incitement to violence is embedded in it.

The only reasonable exception to free speech is actual incitement to violence narrowly defined. It must be narrowly defined because otherwise it can be used to bludgeon all forms of free speech. The examples I usually give are:

"Jews are slimy thieving usurers who control the media and steal Arab land" - permitted. I may find your statement distasteful but free speech cannot be limited by what disgusts me personally.

"Kill the Jews." - forbidden. This is clearly incitement to violence.

"Pity Hitler never finished the job." Borderline. It could be construed as incitement to violence.

Actually Sammie, I don't think I have missed the point at all. As I see it, this is NOT a 'free speech' (or indeed an 'academic freedom') issue.

As far as I can tell, noone was proposing that the group or proponents of the group be banned or otherwise restricted from spreading their message on campus.

Students are free to vote on and discuss what their Union money is to be spent on. If they don't want it spent on setting up a 'pro-lifer' society, then they have the right to discuss and vote on that. They didn't vote to ban them.

It is indeed ironic that one of the main policies that many pro-life groups have is to restrict taxpayer funding of things they don't agree or approve of (namely abortions and family planning methods), and yet when they are the recipients of such an action, that's a restriction of freedom.

Oh dear.

If freedom of speech is not moderated to exclude certain topics, in an anything goes approach, we will find that the Holocaust denialists, and or child abusing paedophiles, will be given equal rights to voice uncomfortable or extremely intolerable positions, as those of the more mainstream moderate middle.
It's nigh on impossible to put an old head on young shoulders or gain the wisdom only age confers, without having lived for a long time.
If we merely imposed Journalistic requirements/standards on all civil public debate, published material or opine, we would maintain reasonable veracity standards and the normal social mores; that then limit what is up for informed debate and what is not.
Yes, we should engage in often impassioned debate and discussion; but, the principle role of universities, still needs to be largely limited in learning how to learn and or, critical independent thinking, which is almost automatically changed, when we discover we were wrong, or thinking inside a limited circle of self limiting ideas?
Rhrosty.

Rhrosty wrote

>>If freedom of speech is not moderated to exclude certain topics, in an anything goes approach, we will find that the Holocaust denialists, and or child abusing paedophiles, will be given equal rights to voice uncomfortable or extremely intolerable positions, as those of the more mainstream moderate middle.>>

Holocaust deniers have the same rights as anybody else which is the right to express their (insane) views.

However the right to free speech does not mean the right to demand that your views be given equal time by all media. If most major media organisations shun Holocaust deniers they will have to confine themselves to ranting on a few poorly frequented websites. This is what happens now.

Child abuse and paedophilia involve violence against children. Incitement to violence, narrowly defined, is one of the few exceptions to free speech everybody including me recognises.

Bugsy,

I agree that the controversy surrounding "Lifechoices" is not a free speech issue. They can express their point of view but may not demand funding.

The more interesting question is whether the university, if it were so minded, could ban the distribution of anti-abortion literature.

I think one could argue it both ways.

On the one hand the university premises are private property. Property owners do have some say in what may or may not be done on their property. We do not think it a curtailment of free speech if a pork butcher is not allowed to advertise on the premises of a mosque. Nor would we deny that a church could ban pro-abortion literature from its premises.

But, on the other hand, a university is a taxpayer funded institution intended to promote free discourse. It is not private property in the sense of a mosque, church or private house.

I think it would be despicable of a university to ban the distribution of anti-abortion literature on its premises but I think it would be within its rights to do so.

However I agree the University of Sydney has shown no sign of wanting to ban anti-abortion literature or viewpoints.

"However I agree the University of Sydney has shown no sign of wanting to ban anti-abortion literature or viewpoints."

In fact it has gone much further than that, they now have a student-funded society that was formed for the active promotion of anti-abortion literature and viewpoints.

This article was just complaining that some students had the hide to say that they didn't want their union fees spent on such an exercise.

How dare they!

We recently saw in Victoria a top Psychiatrist hounded off a Board just because he spoke the truth about the need of kids having a dad and mum. Of all people he would know better than most. This is not an isolated incident as the secularist dogmas must be swallowed in order to advance in many Government and academic circles.